Latest Cases

Landlord and tenant – Action for possession. The appellant company's appeal against a decision of the Deputy District Judge succeeded, in a case concerning the repossession of a property of which the respondent was a tenant. The central issue was whether a landlord was precluded by cause of action estoppel from obtaining an order for possession of property by reason of the tenant's non-payment of rent when there was an existing undischarged order for payment of earlier arrears and for possession for non-payment of those arrears. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, among other things, the causes of action entitling the relevant local authority to an earlier possession order and the appellant to the 2017 order had not been the same or even substantially the same. The proceedings were not barred by cause of action estoppel.

Company – Director. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, the seventh and eighth defendants had acted in dishonest breach of duty in causing the claimant company to pay more for an oil rig than the price for which it had been sold, and in taking advantage of the cancellation of the purchase agreement, and failing to return sums to the claimant. The existence of sanctions with Iran did not make it contrary to the public interest to enforce the claimant's claim.

Indictment – Joinder of charges. It had been a proper exercise of the judge's discretion to refuse severance of the indictment of charges concerning indecency with young children allegedly committed between 1986 and 1991, and of possession of indecent photographs of a child in 2015. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against conviction, held that, where the evidence on one count would be properly admissible on the other as evidence of bad character, it was difficult to argue that the defendant would be prejudiced or embarrassed in his defence by having both counts or sets of counts on the same indictment.

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant court's decision, that the claimant's trial for driving with excess alcohol would go ahead on the date fixed at which the prosecution expert could attend and the defence expert (whose report had been served in good time) could not, had been unsustainable. The Divisional Court, having set out exceptional circumstances in which judicial review might be an appropriate means to challenge a decision as to an adjournment, held that the present was an exceptional case in which the court should intervene at the pre-trial stage.

Company – Restoration to register. The applicant company shareholders had not failed in respect of their duty of full and frank disclosure in respect of all material facts when making their application for the restoration of three companies to the Register of Companies. Accordingly, the Chancery Division ruled, among other things, that the respondent liquidators' and company managers' application to set aside the order of restoration would be dismissed.